Soil Specialist from Down Under- Flight 93 Crashed in Shanksville? "Nonsense!"

[Justin39640]

dont forget
bullets bury themselves in sandbags they dont bounce off

 

[Rewey]

I repeated what I had observed in my parents back yard much to their dismay using nothing but a 10 foot length of steel pipe hooked up to a garden hose. sinking it repeatedsly to its full length using only light pressure and leaving 3/4 inch holes ten foot deep all over the back yard. Are you sure you're a soil scientist and not some simple minded dirt farmer?

Sorry, but I just can't let this one go. Do you even know how that works??? It has nothing to DO with pressure. The running water, when pushed into the ground, carries with it to the surface the loose grains of sand that are washed out of the hole. They are washed to the surface because the water going down the hole has nowhere to go but back up the hole again (once the surrounding soil is saturated).

So what's the point? Did Flight 93 have a garden hose attached?

Seriously... and you say I bring up dumb examples...

Rewey

 

[Rewey]

dont forget
bullets bury themselves in sandbags they dont bounce off

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.

 

[LashL]

Oh jeebus, jeebus, jeebus.

The polite thing for me to do is to welcome you to the forum, at least in a perfunctory way. But despite the fact that I'm usually a reasonably well-mannered person, in this case I'm not going to do that. Because doing so would be more than a little hypocritical. You see, I'm so sick of this -- people who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about making nonsense claims, claims that anyone with a partially functioning brain should instantly realize can only be true if hundreds of people conspired to kill thousands of innocent civilians for some murky and insane purpose.

What do you get out of this? I'm serious, I really want to know: what do you get out of this? Does it make you feel special somehow, accusing people you don't know of murder based upon some nursery-school misunderstanding of the science involved? Does the attention of a few lonely, misguided paranoids justify making such a vicious attack, while simultaneously disgracing the memory of the victims? Bear in mind, if what you're claiming is true, Todd Beamer and the other passengers lied -- indeed, they themselves where apparently in on the conspiracy. What do you think the victims' families would think of that? Does that bother you at all?

"Asking questions." I can scarcely believe that after nearly eight years after the fact, there are people still trying to justify their malicious, libelous crap under that tired old canard.

This bears repeating in its entirety. So, here it is.

Ah, I hear the distant "doink" of a xylaphone (inside joke).

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But not all opinions are equally meritorious, or deserve equal amounts of respect. As I suspect you would agree (perhaps not in this case, but at least in principle), an opinion based on facts, logic, and reason deserves more respect than one based on ignorance and paranoia.

This also bears repeating in its entirety. So, here it is.

 

[Rewey]

Does the attention of a few lonely, misguided paranoids justify making such a vicious attack, while simultaneously disgracing the memory of the victims?... What do you think the victims' families would think of that? Does that bother you at all?

I can scarcely believe that after nearly eight years after the fact, there are people still trying to justify their malicious, libelous crap under that tired old canard.

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

 

[jhunter1163]

Someone here doesn't KNOW as much as he thinks he does.

 

[T.A.M.]

None of whom appeared on the passenger manifests.

So you have seen the manifest? You state they did not appear on them, so please show us the copies of the manifests so we can confirm what you have said.

No don't bother, as I know you cannot. The fact is the closest ANYONE in the public domain has to the passenger manifests (not the victim list from CNN) are the passenger lists that McDermmott got from the FBI, which do reveal the hijackers. Your comments are so 2006.

So there is a chance that there WAS a bomb on board? There is a chance then that this was used moments before it hit the ground? This might explain a different style of debris field...

He also said they would be returning to the airport to have their demands met, did he not (or at least one of the hijackers did)? That didn't happen, so why is his comment of a "bomb on board" to be taken any differently then an attempt at passenger control (just like the airport/demands comment).

They were unable to get into the cockpit, yet the terrorists just crashed the plane instead of continuing to their original destination? Were they scared of the banging on the cockpit door? They clearly weren't afraid of dying, just loud shouting?

speculate much? Ok, while we are "speculating" what YOU think they should have done, here is what I speculate,

I speculate that they panicked, and in that panic, decided that rather then let the passengers in the cockpit, where they would be overwhelmed, and possibly (thinking in their panicked state) lose control of the aircraft back to the passengers, they decided to make sure they at least killed all on board, if they could not make it to their predefined target.

So how long before we find out you are a Dom or CIT sockpuppet? Or are you just one of the half dozen or so people foolish enough to believe their tripe?

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

Sorry, but I just can't let this one go. Do you even know how that works??? It has nothing to DO with pressure. The running water, when pushed into the ground, carries with it to the surface the loose grains of sand that are washed out of the hole. They are washed to the surface because the water going down the hole has nowhere to go but back up the hole again (once the surrounding soil is saturated).

So what's the point? Did Flight 93 have a garden hose attached?

Seriously... and you say I bring up dumb examples...

Rewey

Was the fuel on flight 93 a liquid or a solid genius?

 

[JimBenArm]

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.

So, would you like to compare the mass and kinetic energy of a bullet to that of a commercial airliner? Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Really? Really and truly?

Here's an exercise for you. I know that goes against your normal mode of operation, but try it anyway. Calculate the mass and inertia of a bullet, say a 9 millimeter from a handgun. Find out how far it would penetrate into said sandbags. Now, calculate the same thing for said airliner. I'm somewhat certain the values you come up with will be a tad bit larger than those for the projectile. Also, for extra credit, see if you can figure out how much further into the sandbag the pieces of the airliner will go after the fuel-air explosion after the crash. Bet it's even further. Of course, I'm only speculating. Nothing wrong with just asking questions, is there?

The only thing surprising about the 50 foot value is that it was ONLY 50 feet. At least to people with working brain stems.

 

[sleahead]

Hate to point this out to you, but have a look at how long the 'truth' about the US involvement in other wars has taken to come out? Before it's FINALLY admitted as truth. Decades.

The truth about the warnings before the sinking of the Lusitania, whilst the US claimed they had no knowledge about German uboats. No-one could believe that the US would send a passenger ship deliberately into uboat infested waters, but it's now known that they did.

Did they really claim they knew nothing about the danger despite a warning from the German embassy being published in US newpapers?

No, the US did not send the Lusitania into dangerous waters. It was a British ship. Here is a list of the US ships sunk or damaged prior to the US declaration of war:

January 27, 1915: Schooner William P. Frye, gross 3,374 tons; captured by German auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich (commerce raider) in South Atlantic, southeast of Brazil. Sunk January 28, 1915; no casualties

May 1, 1915: Steamship Gulflight, tanker, gross 5,189 tons; torpedoed by German submarine U-30, 20 miles west of Scilly Islands; towed in; 3 killed.

May 25, 1915: Steamship Nebraskan, gross 4,409 tons; torpedoed by German submarine 40 miles south by west of Southcliffe, off southwest; salvaged; no casualties.

July 25, 1915: Steamship Leelenaw, gross 1,923 tons fired on, torpedoed and sunk by German submarine off the north coast of Scotland about 60 miles northwest of the Orkney Islands; no casualties.

August 4, 1915: Pass of Balhamas, motor vessel, gross 1,571 tons, voluntarily surrendered by the master to a German submarine in the North Sea; converted into raider Seeadler; wrecked August 2, 1917; no casualties.

October 28, 1916: Steamship Lenao (Philippine steamship), gross 692 tons; bombed and sunk by a German submarine 30 miles off Cape Vincent, Portugal; no casualties.

November 7, 1916: Steamship Columbian, gross 8,673 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-49, 50 miles northwest of Cape Ortegal, Spain, no casualties.

November 26, 1916: Steamship Chemung, gross 3,061 tons; torpedoed and sunk with gunfire by Austrian submarine in Mediterranean, 14 miles east of Cape de Gata, no casualties.

January 4, 1917: Steamship Norlina, gross 4,596 tons; damaged by torpedo fired by German submarine U-88 in Atlantic Ocean about 180 miles northwest of Inishtrahull Island off the north coast of Ireland, did not sink; no casualties.

January 13, 1917: Steamship Nyanza, damaged by gunfire from German submarine; 1 wounded.*

February 3, 1917: Steamship Housatonic, gross 3,143 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-53, 20 miles south of Bishops Light off Scilly Islands, Great Britain, no casualties.

February 12, 1917: Lyman M. Law, schooner, gross 1,300 tons; captured and sunk by German submarine U-35 in the Mediterranean about 25 miles from land near Cagliari, Sardinia, no casualties.

March 12, 1917: Steamship Algonquin, gross 2,832 tons; sunk with gunfire and bombs by German submarine U-62, 65 miles west of Bishops, off Scilly Islands, Great Britain, no casualties.

March 16, 1917: Steamship Vigilancia, gross 4.115 tons; torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-70, 145 miles west of Bishops, off Scilly Islands, Great Britain; 15 killed.

March 17, 1917: Steamship City of Memphis, gross 5,252 tons; sunk with gunfire by German submarine (UC type), 33 miles south of Fastnet, Ireland; no casualties.

March 18. 1917: Steamship Illinois, tanker, gross 5,225 tons; sunk with bombs by German submarine (UC type) in the English Channel, 20 miles north of Alderney, Channel Islands; no casualties.

March 21, 1917: Steamship Healdton, tanker, gross 4,489 tons; torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine 25 miles north of Terschelling, Holland, 20 killed.

April 1, 1917: Steamship Aztec, gross 3,727 tons; torpedoed and sunk by an enemy submarine (UC type), off Ushant Light, Quessant Island, northwest coast of France; 28 killed.

April 4, 1917: Marguerite, schooner, gross 1,553 tons; sunk with bombs by German submarine U-35 in the Mediterranean, 35 miles southwest of Sardinia; no casualties.

April 4, 1917: Steamship Missourian, gross 7,924 tons; shelled with gunfire and sunk by German submarine U-52 in the Mediterranean, near Porto Maurizio, Italy, no casualties.

April 7, 1917: Steamship Seward, gross 3,390 tons; bombed and sunk by German submarine U-52 in the Gulf of Lyons, Mediterranean Sea, about 25 miles east of Port Vendres, France, or 22 miles northeast of Cape Bagur, Spain; no casualties.

April 7, 1917: Edwin R. Hunt, schooner, gross 1,132 tons; sunk with gunfire by German submarine UC-25 in the Mediterranean 40 miles off Cape de Gata, Spain; no casualties

 

[LightinDarkness]

Oh god, yet another twoofer who absolutely failed political science and public policy. First of Rewey, no one believes you blindly "stumbled" upon JREF, you were googling your own posts because you have a ego that is larger than that of most twoofers.

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY SURE the government would not fake terrorists attacks to get into a war where we gain absolutely nothing. Instead, if we just wanted to fake something to get into a war, a much smarter thing to do would to fake a foreign invasion via carpet bombing a town or two.

Failed history too. Don't twoofers usually use wikipedia to back up their sources. Have you read the wiki on the RMS Lusitania? Guess what, even Wikipedia acknowledges there is no evidence the United States government did anything to get it sinked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

What we have here folks is full blown woo. No, the United States didn't sacrafice anyone to get into a war. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

Bzzt. WRONG AGAIN! Operation Northwoods was never officially adopted or carried out.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

WRONG! There were indeed real attacks at the Gulf, the second attack claim was exaggerated.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

WRONG! This did not happen anywhere except in twoofer imaginations.

And this is why no one will ever take you, ATS, or twoofers seriously, Rewey. Because from start to finish, you lie and distort and present things that are not real. None of the above were examples of the government doing anything to get us into a war. None of them.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

Yes, the track record does speak for itself: In EVERY OTHER CASE THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS YOU ARE A LIAR.

ou blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

Actually, at JREF we stand up for reality. You, on the other hand, blindly rage against the machine.

 

[Pinch]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915...

And you would have been one of those people in 1941...

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s...

And you would have been one of those people in 1964...

more historical revisionism snipped.

Rarely have I seen history so completely butchered through ignorance and selective annotation of conspiracy fantasies. It seems like every historical event was referenced in nothing more than its worst concoction by the CT'ers. I'll grant that many events of the past have anomalies in or about them - it is the nature of life - the same that 9/11 has anomalies in and about it, not to mention the human element in any of these events. Pursuing those anomalies to a conclusion that is always the absolute worst and assuming human decision making is *always* in a nefarious mode is nothing more than poor scholarship and ignorant reading of the past. People who are so fixed in hating their government regardless what facts or evidence is available are, really, sad and should stay away from the intellectual heavy lifting of the questions of the day.

 

[JimBenArm]

>snip< and should stay away from the intellectual heavy lifting of the questions of the day.

Oh, don't worry. They do. After all, all they do is ask questions. Really, really stupid questions. Then ignore the answers.

 

[kookbreaker]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

 

[Justin39640]

You're absolutely right there, but not 50 feet into it.

So, would you like to compare the mass and kinetic energy of a bullet to that of a commercial airliner? Do you really think this is a valid comparison? Really? Really and truly?

Here's an exercise for you. I know that goes against your normal mode of operation, but try it anyway. Calculate the mass and inertia of a bullet, say a 9 millimeter from a handgun. Find out how far it would penetrate into said sandbags. Now, calculate the same thing for said airliner. I'm somewhat certain the values you come up with will be a tad bit larger than those for the projectile. Also, for extra credit, see if you can figure out how much further into the sandbag the pieces of the airliner will go after the fuel-air explosion after the crash. Bet it's even further. Of course, I'm only speculating. Nothing wrong with just asking questions, is there?

The only thing surprising about the 50 foot value is that it was ONLY 50 feet. At least to people with working brain stems.

sand is natures kevlar lol
yeah i cant understand why he cant understand why it happened that way

a bullet going just above the speed of sound buries itself say 5 inches
a bullet is a few grams
what happens when an object hits sand thats hundreds of thousands of kilograms?
it buries much further (say... 50 feet?)
and the parts didnt hit the ground individually they were still one whole airplane

you never answered the 1st part of what i pointed out to you in post 59

the reason for that was
the NIST makes recommendations to improve future designs and improve existing ones

they dont investigate airplane crashes
since this plane crash was a crime the NTSB handed it off to the FBI
since there was no structures involved or egress plans (or lack of) to save lives
the NIST would have no business with flight 93

ETA: i think this shows that you may not fully grasp the reality of the situations youre typing about (not to mention disrespecting the dead, and apologizing for murderous terrorists)

seeing your concepts and beliefs are obviously WRONG there (you should understand the NIST's mission before you wrongly criticize what it did or didnt do)
wouldnt you go back at that point and reanalyze what you think to look for other errors? (esp after having all of your errors pointed out in B&W here and esp if youre ideas only came from sites with "911 truth" in the title or addy)

 

[Justin39640]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

lol
whats history when you have the "truth?"
just make it up as you go along lol

 

[Stellafane]

You know what? You would have been one of those people in 1915 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice over a thousand people JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the sinking of the Lusitania was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1941 saying "There's NO WAY the government would sacrifice thousands of servicemen JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Pearl Harbour was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in the 60s saying "There's NO WAY the government would kill hundreds of civilians and engage in domestic terrorism JUST so they could overthrow a neighbouring government", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that Operation Northwood was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1964 saying "There's NO WAY the government would make up an imaginary torpedo attack JUST so they could get dragged into a war", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exactly that.

And you would have been one of those people in 1993 saying "There's NO WAY the government would know about a truckbomb heading for the WTC and just let it happen", but guess what - we NOW KNOW that the WTC bombing was exactly that.

You know what? You can hassle me all you like about 'disgracing the memory of the victims', and whatever other emotive language you want to use, but at the end of the day, the track record speaks for itself. IN EVERY OTHER CASE it was people like YOU who ended up disgracing the memory of the victims with your ignorance...

You all carry on like 8 years is an eternity... Believe it or not, it's still within the statute of limitations for crimes such as murder, so the courts don't agree with you that it's too long for the truth to come out. For all of the examples above, the truth took decades to come out. The same will happen here... You blindly stand up for the government - what has it ever done for you? Seriously?

Wow -- from "just asking questions" mode to full-scale bug-eyed spittle-flying "all-history-as-CT, wake-up-sheeple!!" rant in one single post! That's got to be some sort of record.

You happen to be 100% correct in that I am "one of those people" you describe. You see, I don't base my beliefs on simply imagining what might have happened; I actually like to see a little something called "evidence." Which, I'm afraid, is in very short supply regarding the things you claim. Until you produce such evidence (and no, the paranoid delusions of some obscure CTers don't count) then you KNOW nothing; what you IMAGINE is another question entirely (and not one I care to go into too deeply, frankly).

Although I have to ask: Why didn't you lay your CT cards on the table when you came here? Why did you pretend that you were just "asking questions" about Shanksville and not making any claims that anything malicious happened? In other words, why did you follow lockstep in the same overworn and obvious path as countless Truthers before you? Did you actually think for a nanosecond we didn't see this coming 10 miles away?

 

[Rewey]

First of Rewey, no one believes you blindly "stumbled" upon JREF, you were googling your own posts because you have a ego that is larger than that of most twoofers.

Actually, I googled "Shanksville physics" to find out more about it, and it was the second option... feel free to try it yourself.

Failed history too. Don't twoofers usually use wikipedia to back up their sources. Have you read the wiki on the RMS Lusitania? Guess what, even Wikipedia acknowledges there is no evidence the United States government did anything to get it sinked

Well, gosh, if Wikipedia says so... How can you ridicule 'twoofers' for using it, then use it reliably yourself? The ads placed by the German embassy in the US newspapers warning about u-boat attacks were a response to reports to the German embassy that armaments were being carried as cargo on a passenger ship. Look it up... and try somewhere other than Wikipedia... who do you think was loading armaments on to the Lusitania, headed for England? It was an extension of the lend-lease scheme.

What we have here folks is full blown woo. No, the United States didn't sacrafice anyone to get into a war. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan.

Of course it was attacked by Japan, but you need to look into the McCollum memo. FDR knew where the Japanese naval fleet was heading. He just didn't tell those in Hawaii. A diary entry by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan." Does this not equate to 'sacrificing' to you? It does to me...

Bzzt. WRONG AGAIN! Operation Northwoods was never officially adopted or carried out.

Of COURSE it wasn't carried out. My God. But it showed the lengths that were considered in order to overthrow a foreign government. The fact that it was even considered by those in command should surely be bad enough?

WRONG! There were indeed real attacks at the Gulf, the second attack claim was exaggerated.

I never said there weren't real attacks - but look further into the incident which sparked US involvement...

The funny thing is, I bet if I mentioned the Nazi's burning the Reichstag building for political benefit, you'd probably all agree, right? Is that just because they were the 'bad guys'?


Everyone here seems to be forgetting the "friendly and lively way"...

 

[Rewey]

In what version of history did the USA enter WW1 in 1915?

The Lusitania was the first of three events which were required to change the public US perception of the war, as much of the public held to the US's traditional policy of isolationism.

This was followed by the Zimmerman telegram, and the sinking of more US merchant ships. It was after this that the US declared war...

 

[leftysergeant]

Besides the fact that those comments are obviously in violation of the T&C’s of this site (awesome moderating), I get the feeling there are a few people here who feel proud that they are critical thinkers for no other reason that they post their thoughts on a website which claims it’s for critical thinking.

You were not at that time a member, and we will not apologize, especially in light of the way you are acting now. There is no violation of the terms and conditions. Don't get uppity about our natural reaction to your assertions.

And leftysergeant, with regards to me drifting to the Pentagon from time to time – this was stated in the report as being well off topic. For those who continued with the thread on ATS, you’d also know that when someone pointed out evidence contrary to what I’d said, I THANKED THEM AND AMENDED MY REPORT. You see, unlike most people on both sides of the 9/11 debate, when someone points out evidence to show I’m wrong, I actually go back and amend my paper. I don’t immediately abuse the **** out of them. I’m currently working on Revision 1, which I’d hoped to finish tonight, but thought I’d better say a few things here instead. [continued...]

You don't get to do that. It has been nearly eight years. There is no excuse for you to be spewing Bunel's crap at people anymore. No one with a brain that works right has claimed that the plane went through six concrete walls in YEARS.